Marxist theory could not theorize nationalism and so evaded it

Evidence

It would be more exact to say that nationalism has proved an uncomfortable anomaly for Marxist theory and, precisely for that reason, has been largely elided, rather than confronted. How else to explain Marx’s failure to explicate the crucial adjective in his memorable formulation of 1848: ‘The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie’? How else to account for the use, for over a century, of the concept ‘national bourgeoisie’ without any serious attempt to justify theoretically the relevance of the adjective? Why is this segmentation of the bourgeoisie – a world-class insofar as it is defined in terms of the relations of production – theoretically significant? — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, 33

Categorization

  • XREF: Parallel to how dominant frameworks (liberal universalism, Marxism) elide what they cannot explain — the same elision Islamophobia scholars argue afflicts mainstream theory about religion and race. — connects to: Postcolonial thinkers had to deconstruct Eurocentric prejudices within Marxism itself; Preventing nationalist war requires abandoning the myth that Marxism resists nationalism — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on…, 629; Marxism’s dismissal of culture left it unequipped for nationalism (+3 more)

Broader Connections